As the Prime Minister said, we look forward to working very closely with the new administration. I continued negotiations with Michael Froman this weekend in Lima during the APEC summit. The Prime Minister also raised the matter with President Obama.

We will continue to work closely with producers, workers, the provinces, and the territories.

Mr. Speaker, since the message is not getting through, I will repeat that the forestry sector is made up of people. It sustains 120 towns in Quebec. This is how the land is occupied, here.

A new softwood lumber crisis is affecting the people of our villages in Quebec who could lose their livelihoods and be forced to leave their region in order to find work.

I ask again, will Ottawa commit to granting loan guarantees to forestry companies to deal with the new softwood lumber crisis caused, let us face it, by the Prime Minister's inability to negotiate in the interests of our people?

Mr. Speaker, we are working very hard on the softwood lumber issue, and we are working on behalf of Quebec and its workers.

I was pleased to meet with forestry workers and producers from Quebec this summer in Saguenay, and to meet with officials from the Montreal business community in October. I was pleased to work closely with the Government of Quebec to reach the Canada-European Union comprehensive economic and trade agreement, a progressive deal.

I am proud to work alongside my Quebec partners to protect jobs in Quebec and create new ones.

Mr. Speaker, during question period today, the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship answered my question about how many Yazidis would come to Canada in the 120-day period. I had mentioned 50 as the number that a Foreign Affairs official had brought forward at committee. This was on the record. The minister said the number was not true and that I had received a briefing that was in camera at committee.

Mr. Speaker, given that the Minister of Immigration said that the number 50 was not true and made an accusation about me, yet one of the departmental officials had said the number 50 on the record, I would like him either to withdraw his comment about that number not being true, or provide the House with the accurate number of how many Yazidis will be coming to Canada.

Kevin LamoureuxLiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue second reading debate of Bill C-18, the Rouge National Urban Park legislation. The other bills on the agenda for today and tomorrow will be Bill C-25, the business framework legislation, and Bill C-30 regarding CETA. It is my hope that we can complete second reading debate on all these important bills by tomorrow afternoon if at all possible.

Next week, we will commence debate at report stage and third reading of Bill C-26 concerning the Canada pension plan. We will call this bill on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday.

Finally, next Thursday, December 1 shall be the last allotted day for this supply cycle.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-18, an act to amend the Rouge National Urban Park Act, the Parks Canada Agency Act and the Canada National Parks Act.

We will support this bill at second reading because we generally support its fundamental principles. We have a few amendments to put forward in committee. However, in general, this bill is in line with what we requested.

This bill will remedy mistakes made in the past by the Conservatives, who haphazardly introduced a bill without consulting their provincial colleagues, in particular their Ontario colleagues, and without adequate consultation of environmental groups. This earned the ire and indignation of these groups and of the province. However, it did result in the creation of the Rouge Park, but it was not enough to allow us to address our needs and create a national urban park worthy of its designation.

As I said, Bill C-18 seeks to amend the Rouge National Urban Park Act, which was passed by the Conservatives during the last Parliament. Unfortunately, they did not set the bar very high when it comes to creating parks. On the contrary, they lowered the bar. These amendments will ensure that the preservation or reestablishment of ecological integrity by protecting natural resources and ecological processes will be the minister's priority in all aspects of park management.

This was one of the problems. At the time, the Conservatives explained their failure by saying that the creation of an urban national park was new territory. They felt that because this was out of the ordinary they did not need to focus on ecological integrity and therefore lowered the bar for conservation.

Of course, both environmental groups and the NDP said that this did not make sense, that we should rather invest in order to maintain strong, robust regulations on ecological integrity. This should have been one of the top criteria. Concessions to urban realities could be made later, but the ecological integrity criterion needed to be front and centre.

The other change that Bill C-18 makes is that it adds approximately 1,669 hectares of federal land to the Rouge National Urban Park. This will make it possible to have a collection of useful land with ecological integrity and a viable ecosystem, which is how it should have been from the start. Unfortunately, since the Conservatives could not seem to agree on a solid bill, they did not manage to obtain the land that was already protected and that belonged to the Province of Ontario at the time.

Finally, Bill C-18 also changes the boundaries of Wood Buffalo National Park in Alberta. This change will reduce the area of the park by 37 square kilometres in order to create the Garden River Indian Reserve. As such, the bill fulfills the promise that was made to the Little Red River Cree Nation, which is a very good thing.

The NDP wishes that the government would protect more land by creating more national parks using sound environmental legislation. We hope that the Rouge National Urban Park will be the first in a series of national parks in urban settings across Canada.

In fact, my NDP colleague from Alberta asked our Liberal colleagues a question about that in question period. She just got back from a mission to Marrakesh for the international conference on climate change, COP22. I know that she did an excellent job there representing Canada and the NDP's positions on addressing climate change.

All the work that needs to be done to protect and uphold first nations' rights is of course essential, so it is extremely important that we consult first nations.

The member said very little about how she plans to improve the situation. Unfortunately, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act was amended in 2012. I was a member of the environment committee at the time, where I witnessed what I would call the gutting of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

That legislation used to require adequate consultation, or at least more consultation than what is required today. It was sacrificed and handed over to the National Energy Board, which has expertise when it comes to energy, but not really when it comes to protecting the environment. We cannot ask the fox to guard the henhouse; it makes no sense. That is basically what happened. The government of the day put the fox in charge of the henhouse, as the NEB was asked to protect the environment. Well, that is not how it works.

During the election campaign, the Liberals promised to reform the environmental assessment process and said that no more major projects would go through under the old Conservative process, a process they condemned then as they do now. For now, however, major projects are still being assessed according to the old Conservative process. Unfortunately, that promise was not kept.

That is why my Alberta colleague asked the government to keep that promise and ensure that our environmental assessments are worthy of the name. They were better when we had the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, and they can be made even stronger and tougher.

Unfortunately, I do not know what is going on, but the Liberals are taking their sweet time on this issue. It is really awful because major projects, such as TransMontaigne Product Services LLC and energy east, are currently under review. People all over Quebec and in other parts of Canada are very worried about this, and they do not have much faith in the current process.

We asked for a rigorous, independent, science-based assessment, and we asked the government to start the energy east pipeline assessment over using a credible process. Unfortunately, the National Energy Board is assessing the project, and it has no intention of starting over. This is appalling.

That is why my colleague asked that question in the House today. We need a rigorous environmental assessment process for major projects, something we currently do not have.

We believe that the bill on the Rouge National Urban Park should give a clearer priority to ecological health and integrity, something the current bill does, so that we can focus on conservation.

We also need to think about all of the activities that could affect the park. Such activities are bound to take place there since, as has been mentioned, it is an urban park. My Conservative colleagues used that as an excuse not to focus on conservation.

Nevertheless, we can focus on conservation and study other activities that could potentially occur in the park because it is in an urban setting. For example, it makes sense for there to be agriculture and other similar activities that can also be subject to a strict environmental assessment. That goes without saying.

We also need a science-based management plan. In order to do that, the government needs to have the courage to review the Canada Environmental Assessment Act, as I mentioned before. It is not right that the National Energy Board is assessing major projects. That makes no sense.

Finally, there is a need for solid public and parliamentary oversight mechanisms.

These issues will be assessed by the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development. I know that my colleague from Alberta sits on this committee and she will ensure that these provisions are assessed and given comprehensive consideration. I would also like to mention that my other colleague with an interest in parks has also done a very thorough job on this file in order to ensure that conservation and ecological integrity are front and centre in this bill.

The New Democrats have been pushing for a long time for the Rouge National Urban Park to have the same legal protection as other national parks in Canada. We want the bill to establish a solid template for the creation of other national parks in urban settings.

We applaud the efforts made by people, all communities, environmental organizations, people living in the community around the Rouge National Park, and the Friends of Rouge National Urban Park. These people worked very hard for decades to ensure the creation of this very unique park. It will be the first national urban park in Canada.

Efforts are required to ensure everything goes well, however. I still remember very clearly how much work was done on this file by our former NDP colleague Rathika Sitsabaiesan, who was not reelected but is still working very hard. She introduced Bill C-696 to correct the flaws in the Conservative's bill on the Rouge national park. She worked very hard to correct the situation.

As the House can see, the NDP does not sit idly by. When we saw that this bill would neither make the park big enough nor ensure adequate conservation, we immediately introduced a private member's bill. That is how the NDP works. We are a collaborative party. We are a party that wants to make progress. We come up with solutions to problems.

That is what we want to keep doing in committee when this bill gets there. We have suggestions for improving and fine-turning this bill. I hope the Liberals will agree to work on improving it.

I am happy that the Liberals are correcting, in some way, the Conservatives’ mistakes in the Rouge National Urban Park bill. On the other hand, we have not heard much from them on the establishment of new national parks. In addition, we are not meeting our target for creating either land or marine protected areas.

I would like to talk about a very important marine protected area that has been at the project stage for almost 20 years. It is the St. Lawrence estuary marine protected area where the beluga whale’s critical habitat is located. Belugas are not just a threatened species, because they now have species-at-risk status.

On May 14, 2016, the Liberal government published the project to determine the beluga whale’s critical habitat in the Canada Gazette. If memory serves, the government has about 90 days after that to issue a ministerial order designating and protecting a critical habitat.

Today is November 24. More than 90 days have passed since May 14, and yet, we are still waiting.

When will we have regulation determining the beluga whale’s critical habitat in the St. Lawrence?

Why are we not adding to that a project to establish marine protected areas in the St. Lawrence estuary? We have been waiting for 20 years. We do not want to end up with more problems such as those we faced when the Conservatives wanted to build an oil terminal right in the beluga nursery. It made no sense. In fact, the scientists all knew that and said so. Nevertheless, it was allowed to go ahead.

Our election platform stated that in the first six months of an NDP mandate, we would launch a very detailed project, in conjunction with the province of Quebec, to establish a marine protected area for the beluga whale. This is an important development that we want to see. I hope that the Liberal government will go ahead with it. In any case, it needs to get with the program concerning the ministerial order on the beluga’s critical habitat; the deadline of May 14, 2016, has long since passed.

To summarize, the NDP is willing to work with the Liberals, and also with the Conservatives if they agree to change their attitude, to improve Bill C-18 . It is already a very good bill, but it could be improved by doing what environmental groups are calling on us to do, which is to ensure that the Rouge park enjoys the same legal protection as other national parks.

In addition, we want to have the opportunity to propose a few amendments to make the bill stronger so that the framework it creates can serve as an template for the establishment of other national urban parks. We hope there will be others.

With regard to the Rouge National Urban Park, we want to give clear priority to environmental health and integrity as well as conservation.

We are aware that other activities are integral parts of the park, and we want them to be included, and to be subjected to thorough environmental assessments. We also want there to be a science-based management plan. Furthermore, we want the Liberals to present to us a short-term and long-term plan for the establishment of a new urban park, new national parks and marine protected areas.

If the recommendations of the 2017 Green Budget Coalition were accepted, we would have six national parks established by 2020, if memory serves. That would enable us to reach our targets, or at least come close.

Right now, the Liberals need to read the recommendations of the 2017 Green Budget Coalition. They contain many good ideas for achieving our conservation goals. Unfortunately, we are a long way from doing so at the moment.

Mr. Speaker, over the course of the debate, we have been hearing over and over again from our friends across the aisle about ecological integrity being an overriding principle of the park and that it should be removed because it impedes development of the park. Would my colleague tell us what more he thinks we need to do to ensure that ecological integrity is enshrined not just in this park, but parks across the country?

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. I am sure that he is working very hard on this very important issue.

The Conservatives really dropped the ball on this file, in particular because they weakened the provisions on ecological integrity protection and conservation.

On the other hand, I am wondering where my colleague stands on the Green Budget Coalition’s recommendations, which include establishing at least six new national parks and three new national wildlife areas by 2020 and identifying new areas requiring protection through a plan based on science and traditional knowledge. This is extremely important.

It is a step in the right direction. It was vital to improve the legislation on the Rouge National Urban Park, because we could not afford to have weak criteria for urban parks. There may be other activities in the Rouge National Urban Park, such as agriculture, and thorough assessments to ensure that ecological integrity is maintained. I am therefore in agreement with my colleague on this. We must have a very rigorous legal framework.

Let us see what we can do in committee to ensure that this perspective is taken into consideration. The idea is first and foremost to make the ecological health and integrity of the Rouge National Urban Park a priority. That will ensure that we have a real park that is large enough to have a complete ecosystem.

Kevin LamoureuxLiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I have more of a comment than anything else, recognizing the effort of many of the different stakeholders who have made today possible. My colleague from Scarborough—Rouge Park has done yeoman's work in ensuring there is a clear understanding of just how important this park is.

I want to take the opportunity to expand upon how important parks, large and small alike, are to all Canadians. For example, I know how much we appreciate our river walk system in Winnipeg, and we want to see that expand.

Canadians seem to have a natural love of nature, and it is often best explored when we go to parks. I will leave it open-ended for my colleague across the way to provide his thoughts about the importance of having that park for Canadians in all regions, even though we recognize the Rouge park today.

Madam Speaker, the Rouge National Urban Park is extremely important, since it is about an hour’s drive away for almost 20% of residents of the Greater Toronto Area. Everyone in the GTA will thus have ready access to the park. That too is important.

National parks are often remote and inaccessible, but this one is very close. People will be able to enjoy nature. It is increasingly important for people to get close to nature so that they can protect our environment more effectively.

We should note that in this park, there are 23 species considered at risk by the federal government, 800 species of plants and 55 species of fish. This demonstrates the richness of the park’s ecosystem and the importance of protecting it.

On the other hand, I deplore once again the fact that the government has no comprehensive plan for achieving the Aichi targets, which are to preserve 17% of land areas and 10% of marine areas by 2020. We are a long way from that.

In addition, the Green Budget Coalition stated that the federal government should establish six new parks, and nothing has been done so far, unfortunately.

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Drummond for his always interesting comments on the environment. I am particularly pleased to ask him a question, since he knows a fair bit about my riding.

The bill that is before us today seems quite well designed for Rouge Park, but we would like it to serve as a template for future parks.

My colleague may know Saint-Quentin island, in my constituency. This island, situated in the very heart of the city, at the confluence of the St. Maurice and St. Lawrence rivers, in my view has all the necessary characteristics to become one of these other urban parks, if only for the diversity of its flora.

Does my colleague consider this island a territory worthy of being a national park? What are the provisions of Bill C-18 that impact Rouge Park and that could serve as a template for other parks?

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Trois-Rivières, who knows his region very well.

He mentions Saint-Quentin island. I go there regularly because it is such a lovely place. Citizens can go there to replenish themselves in nature and learn to know and observe the various resident species.

I am not perfectly knowledgeable about all the ecological richness to be found there. Making a national park of it some day is another question. But what is certain and important is that we must continue to protect the national asset that is Saint-Quentin island.

In my view, where new national urban parks are concerned, we must ensure that the bar is raised, not lowered, when it comes to conservation. Unfortunately that is what the Conservatives did with the Rouge National Park bill. They lowered the bar when they ought to have kept raising it.

I encourage my hon. colleague from Trois-Rivières to keep up his excellent work of promoting nature, and I encourage the people of Trois-Rivières to visit Saint-Quentin island, which is a true gem in the area.

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments and recall fondly working with him on committee when we were studying this bill. He will remember very clearly that the term “ecological integrity” was one of the big sticking points.

In this bill, clause 2, subclause 6(1) has “maintenance or restoration of ecological integrity” as a priority and the very next clause says that nothing in this bill prevents the “carrying out of agricultural activities”. It is pretty obvious that these two values are going to come into direct conflict with each other. My big concern is that when push comes to shove, the agricultural community will lose its voice.

I wonder if my colleague is able to guarantee the House today that that will not happen and that agricultural practices that have been carried on for generations will continue. The agriculture committee heard from witnesses who said that their families have been farming since 1805, I believe it was. My concern is a reduction in the protection for agricultural producers in very rich farmland.

Madam Speaker, it was my great pleasure to sit on the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development with my colleague. Even though we were not always in agreement, we could still collaborate on other subjects.

The member mentions something that was indeed a question and a concern on the part of the farmers. This has been expressed and underscored. What is important to remember is that these things are not mutually exclusive. It is important to make ecological integrity a priority, but it is also important to allow other activities that have been around since the 19th century, as he says. I am thinking of agriculture, for example. We just need to make sure we have a rigorous environmental study when those activities are maintained. The two, then, are not mutually exclusive, quite the opposite. I would even say that the two are mutually beneficial when their environment is improved.